SUCHA SINGH Vs. BALBIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal arises out of a suit for possession by partition filed by Balbir Singh and others against Sucha Singh and others. The trial Court dismissed the suit because it came to an adverse finding against the plaintiffs on issues Nos. 3 and 7. Issues Nos. 3 and 7 read thus

(2.) Only two contentions have been raised before me, namely that no suit for partial partition lies and that the civil Courts have no jurisdiction to try this suit in as much as the land in dispute is agricultural land or, in other words, is an estate within the meaning of Punjab Land Revenue Act. The lower appellate Court has found that the land has been built upon and has come within the municipal limits and, therefore, it has ceased to be agricultural land. For this purpose it has relied on two decisions of this Court in Rameshwar Nath v. Jageshwar Nath, 1953 55 PunLR 326 and Shah Mohammad v. Mst. Pairi, 17 ILR(Lah) 322 It was held in the latter decision that -

(3.) So far as the first contention is concerned, namely that no suit for partial partition lies, it has no merit. Land which is part of an estate cannot be partitioned by a civil Court vide Section 158(2) of the Land Revenue Act. The mere fact that part of the property of joint owners is not agricultural property and with regard to it relief is necessarily to be obtained in civil Courts will not lay open the plea of partial partition to the defendants. The joint properties are of two kinds and, therefore, their division has to be in two forums i.e. with regard to non-agricultural property the division has to be made by the civil Courts and with regard to agricultural property the division has to be made by the revenue Courts. In this view of the matter there is no merit in the first contention either.